Its often hard to accept the truth, especially when that truth is scary, when reality seems to offer you no solutions, only poison from which to pick. Its as with a man I once knew who insisted it couldnt be proven that smoking was bad for you. He knew better in his heart, but his available choices  giving up cigarettes or accepting the danger of their use were both emotionally unpalatable to him. Enter the rationalization. Were seeing the same thing with Republicans in the wake of Barack Obamas re-election. Radio host Sean Hannity, citing changing American demographics, stated a while back that his position on immigration has evolved: we now must offer illegals some kind of pathway to citizenship (a.k.a. amnesty). Other conservatives are warning that we must dispense with social issues or the Republican Party will be dispensed with. Of course, this isnt always rationalization.

He is saying at the fed level. Marriage, abortion, guns and many are all suppose to be off limits for the feds. They are not in the Constitution and should be handled by the States; we should not encourage the feds to do what is not part of their approved powers.

What are the feds doing about marriage that is not part of their approved powers? (Or abortion, for that matter?)

The Defense of Marriage Law is out of their powers and them trying to get gay marriage is also out of it. It is not one of the enumerated powers. His whole thing is that it is not a federal power granted by the Constitution.
As for abortion it also is not a federal issue it is not covered by the Constitution it was made up by the USSC.

There you go. Clearly stated. Now, in your opinion, how do we combat the liberals relentless desire to drag the GOP into debate with regard to those issues at a Federal level? How would we successfully educate the public to understand that these are not in truth federal issues? Especially in an entitlement era gone berserk?

55
posted on 12/20/2012 1:28:41 PM PST
by MWestMom
("And those that cried appease, appease were hung by those they tried to please" - Horace Mann)

Enshrine what in law? The definition of marriage? The feds are trying to pervert the definition that has been in effect since the beginning of society and force this homosexualism b/s down our throats. If must be fought at ALL levels of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act: "Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state." (emphasis added)

That clause is exactly a forswearing of power not an exercise of power.

"Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns."

You can argue that the federal government shouldn't provide any employee insurance or Social Security survivors' benefits, or regulate immigration, or collect income taxes - but if you grant that any of those are as a whole within their powers, you can't then argue that setting specific policies in those areas is outside their powers.

and them trying to get gay marriage is also out of it.

How exactly (apart from DOMA) are they "trying to get gay marriage"?

As for abortion it also is not a federal issue it is not covered by the Constitution it was made up by the USSC.

And since the federal court made it up and is unwilling to unmake it, only action by the other federal branches can rectify that - those actions are in defense of the Constitution not in violation of it.

I wonder how Swanky feels about DOMA. Here we had a federal law protecting traditional marriage and yet did not violate any state’s laws. How about the Healthy Marriage Initiatives from the 90’s that benefitted us AND our government?

Then you add in the fact that for centuries all goverments have benefitted from healthy marriages and ask yourself how can anyone say the government should remain neutral? Or worse - as swanky did - claim they don’t care if two homo’s marry? That is political/economic/cultural suicide.

I guess the fact that libs are screwing up marriage laws now gives them the right to say the government should not ever have been involved.

63
posted on 12/20/2012 2:15:27 PM PST
by Responsibility2nd
(NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)

Now that we recognize they are misusing the govt (which will always be a battle), What's the answer?

Do we spike their methods and attacks (which is called progressivism) and educate people on proper role of govt (which we will always have to do if you want to keep the Constitution) or do we climb into their boat and talk about fidelity to the constitution sometimes and then be just as progressive sometimes?

If you say it's the latter by fighting at all levels of govt WITH The govt (DOMA, War on Drugs, etc), then how are you going to differentiate conservatism with liberalism when you educate people?

Thinking people will see right thru you that you're just as big govt as a liberal, you just use it differently than they do and in the end, the results are this election. Fewer people showed up to vote against the communist Obama vs a moderately maybe possibly pro-constitution republican Romney.

As for me, the answer is the former. On this issue, on the war on drugs, on all of it. The founder's libertarianism was right then and it's right now. Progressivism is progressivism and we've lost already if we fight against their agenda to destroy the constitution by destroying it ourselves.

If you say it's the latter by fighting at all levels of govt WITH The govt (DOMA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act: "Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state." (emphasis added)

That clause is exactly a forswearing of power not an exercise of power.

"Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns."

You can argue that the federal government shouldn't provide any employee insurance or Social Security survivors' benefits, or regulate immigration, or collect income taxes - but if you grant that any of those are as a whole within their powers, you can't then argue that setting specific policies in those areas is outside their powers.

I wonder how Swanky feels about DOMA. Here we had a federal law protecting traditional marriage and yet did not violate any states laws. ...how can anyone say the government should remain neutral

Gee, you may as well have said, 'we had this here federal law that violated the US Constitution but that's ok because we did it'.

But in response, See 26, 50 and 66 at your leisure and then feel free to move on because you dont even have the slightest clue that you're the liberal democrat in this argument and I dont know how to get past your jack boot. No, you dont believe the same things they do, but you certainly agree to their methods and THAT makes the Const just as dead. You're the one that sees no problem violating the consitution to impose your version of America on other people. Do you even get it that 'using the govt to impose your view' on another is not conservative?

But, on the chance that you cant come to grips, please cite how the country is any more suicided than it already was given that several states have already given the nod to let two homos call each other spouse.

Expand upon whatever feable rationalization you come up with to tell me how those homos are picking your pocket or breaking your leg.

Further expand upon that and explain how your progressivism vs liberal progressivism isn't ACTUALLY suiciding this country.

That clause is exactly a forswearing of power not an exercise of power

A federal law is not an exercise of power? It may reject applying one states law to another but that in and of itself is exercising federal powers.

Now, Why did that have to get passed in the first place? Ostensibly, under this whole 50 different nation states and a small constitutional federal govt, that wasnt needed in the first place. Dont agree? Why do we have state constitutions and govts then?

We will fight at all levels of government. And yes we are conservatives fighting to conserve our unalienable rights, one of which is to be free of unwelcome, unconstitutional federal intervention into our lives. If libertarians have a problem fitting that into their libertarian viewpoints, that’s their problem not mine.

What the hell are you afraid of? Just what is it that scares you so about conservatism?

Lets expand on your fears and phobias for a minute, shall we? Lets say the idiot liberal courts did not rule against DOMA. Lets further theorize that a new Constitutional Amendment was ratified, passed by a majority of states, and enacted as law that defines marriage as one man - one woman.

Why does that scare you? Face it - your entire posting history on this thread has been an attack on conservatism, but especially same sex marriage as a fundamental conservative value. JR has been more than tolerant with you, perhaps based on your 1999 sign up date, but you should have been zotted by now. But you keep sticking that fork in the electric socket - you just ain’t all there.

But back to my question as to why you are afraid of a SoCon majority. Is it because we have seen in the past excesses and abuses by do-gooders and Christians?

Nope.

So even if we conservatives were to obtain a leadership majority, there would not be a re-enactment of Nazi Germany or whatever your fevered brain might imagine.

Look. What you really need to fear is reality. And the reality is that liberalism and socialism is the key enemy here. Look at the Communist Goals of 1963 and check, check, check, check and check some more of the goals that have been attained. And you DARE infer - on this conservative site - that Socons are the enemy?

You say you want to fix the economic mess we’re in as a nation? I say unless we have real moral leadership, there will be no recovery. Am I wrong? You and the Republican Party think so. But a socially liberal ideology results in an economically liberal idealogy. Am I wrong? Show me one of your socially liberal heroes who is right on economic matters.

You just don’t get it. You ask for evidence that homosexuals are damaging our country? Really? You really deny the social and economic benefits of traditional marriage. I suppose you think the billions of dollars paid annualy to welfare recipients are all to them damn married people who raise healthy happy kids and pay their taxes.

Finally - keep insulting conservatism as being “progressivism”. Keep flapping your lips and exposing the truth of what you believe. Class of ‘99 or no.... I will not miss you when you get the zot.

73
posted on 12/20/2012 4:12:17 PM PST
by Responsibility2nd
(NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)

conservatism is not about consistency with any principle except that of preserving the truly valuable that’s we’ve inherited from those who preceded us.

“Choice” or “Natural Law” appears to be where you are hung up.

Natural law says unnatural relations and unnatural marriage is unhealthy for both individuals and society.

A society should have an investment in the procreation and rearing of its next generation. A society has no investment in how you get your jollies and who you have warm fuzzy feelings for.

What have we learned that has been handed down to us from preceding generations? That the biological parents of any child are the ones best to rear that child in the best possible way they know how. Therefore, we have learned to value the union of male and female (the potentially procreative union) as crucial for our culture.

Natural marriage is far more important than someone choosing a butt-buddy for today’s orgasmic delight.

80
posted on 12/20/2012 6:15:16 PM PST
by xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)

So you are ok with the feeds doing whatever they want to do. So you like a nanny state, you know the Constitution really means nothing anyway. You might want to change you name because nannies seem to be ok with you as long as it is fed nannies. Marriage and Abortion are not covered in the Constitution and they should not be allowed to mess with either issue.

"Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state." (emphasis added)

That clause is exactly a forswearing of power not an exercise of power.

A federal law is not an exercise of power?

Not when its core is a nonrequirement.

It may reject applying one states law to another but that in and of itself is exercising federal powers.

Preventing one state from violating the sovereignty of another state would be a valid exercise of federal power.

Now, Why did that have to get passed in the first place? Ostensibly, under this whole 50 different nation states and a small constitutional federal govt, that wasnt needed in the first place.

The concern was that otherwise the Full Faith and Credit Clause would be interpreted to mean that all states had to recognize gay 'marriages' performed in states that allowed it. Did you really not know that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act: "Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state." (emphasis added)

That clause is exactly a forswearing of power not an exercise of power.

"Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns."

You can argue that the federal government shouldn't provide any employee insurance or Social Security survivors' benefits, or regulate immigration, or collect income taxes - but if you grant that any of those are as a whole within their powers, you can't then argue that setting specific policies in those areas is outside their powers.

As for abortion it also is not a federal issue it is not covered by the Constitution it was made up by the USSC.

And since the federal court made it up and is unwilling to unmake it, only action by the other federal branches can rectify that - those actions are in defense of the Constitution not in violation of it.

So you are ok with the feeds doing whatever they want to do. So you like a nanny state, you know the Constitution really means nothing anyway.

Passing an unconstitutional law is wrong period. Saying well it is to correct something else does not make it right, it is still unconstitutional. These are things that have lead us to this point, instead of correcting the problem they pass a law that affects everything except the problem. If the USSC does something it should not then Congress should address that. Not pass a law that affects us and not the USSC. They need to treat the problem not the symptom.

Passing an unconstitutional law is wrong period. Saying well it is to correct something else does not make it right, it is still unconstitutional. [...] If the USSC does something it should not then Congress should address that. Not pass a law that affects us and not the USSC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act: "Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state." (emphasis added)

That clause is exactly a forswearing of power not an exercise of power.

"Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns."

You can argue that the federal government shouldn't provide any employee insurance or Social Security survivors' benefits, or regulate immigration, or collect income taxes - but if you grant that any of those are as a whole within their powers, you can't then argue that setting specific policies in those areas is outside their powers.

Show me where in the constitution the feds are allowed to define marriage. DOMA is unconstitutional.

Now, Why did that have to get passed in the first place? Ostensibly, under this whole 50 different nation states and a small constitutional federal govt, that wasnt needed in the first place.

The concern was that otherwise the Full Faith and Credit Clause would be interpreted to mean that all states had to recognize gay 'marriages' performed in states that allowed it. Did you really not know that?

Sorry, the full faith and credit clause doesnt require a state to substitute its own laws the conflicting law of another state. Did you really think that?

Liberals think that - which is why DOMA was needed. Any other questions you'd like me to clear up for you?

But aside from that, your position is that the FF&CC does force another state's laws on another and so you're sitting here arguing about why DOMA is needed when it's clearly unconstitutional by your own interpretation.

LOL. Progressive much? Golly gee, I guess I'm off to grow me some weed here in Utah since Washington says they can. According to you, I wont be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. < rolls eyes >

You just sat there and told me that libtards believe the FF&CC doesnt require a state to substitute its own laws the conflicting law of another state.

And then you said that DOMA was needed to protect against something liberals dont even believe in. LMAO! Yea, you really just cleared it all up for me. I guess yer kickin and fussin and being a little incoherent.

From you wikipedia The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States.

The concern was that otherwise the Full Faith and Credit Clause would be interpreted to mean that all states had to recognize gay 'marriages' performed in states that allowed it. Did you really not know that?

Sorry, the full faith and credit clause doesnt require a state to substitute its own laws the conflicting law of another state. Did you really think that?

Liberals think that

You just sat there and told me that libtards believe the FF&CC doesnt require a state to substitute its own laws the conflicting law of another state.

Wrong - you missed the obvious "think that" parallelism of "Did you really think that?" and "Liberals think that". What liberals think is what you asked me if I think: that the full faith and credit clause requires a state to substitute for its own laws the conflicting law of another state.

From you wikipedia The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States.

More precisely, for "determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States" (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ199/html/PLAW-104publ199.htm). Is it your position that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to determine the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States?

According to Bernard Bailyn the work most cited by the Founders in their deliberations was Deuteronomy. They lived in a world suffused with Christian ethics, not the vacant amorality that you’re pushing.

97
posted on 12/21/2012 10:12:43 PM PST
by Pelham
(Betrayal, it's not just for Democrats anymore.)

I knew that. And I also knew that Article VIII Section I gave the fed gov the power to regulate morality.

Of course, that ain't in there and I'm not pushing a damned thing. I dont support gay marriage in any way, shape or fashion. Read the rest of my responses and you'll see it's quite the opposite. It's you guys that are pushing something. It's called progressivism and it's dangerous whether pushed by republicans as by democrats.

So when you've established that the Constitution means and says whatever you want, how do you tell a liberal that they dont have the power to do the same thing? And once it's established that either party can violate the Const at will, what leg are you standing on when they regulate away the 2nd ammendment or any of the others? That's the bottom line of what I'm saying.

I knew that. And I also knew that Article VIII Section I gave the fed gov the power to regulate morality.

Of course, that ain't in there and I'm not pushing a damned thing. I dont support gay marriage in any way, shape or fashion. Read the rest of my responses and you'll see it's quite the opposite. It's you guys that are pushing something. It's called progressivism and it's dangerous whether pushed by republicans as by democrats.

So when you've established that the Constitution means and says whatever you want, how do you tell a liberal that they dont have the power to do the same thing? And once it's established that either party can violate the Const at will, what leg are you standing on when they regulate away the 2nd ammendment or any of the others? That's the bottom line of what I'm saying.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.